skip to main content
10.1145/2065023.2065039acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescikmConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

"I'm eating a sandwich in Glasgow": modeling locations with tweets

Published:28 October 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Social media such as Twitter generate large quantities of data about what a person is thinking and doing in a particular location. We leverage this data to build models of locations to improve our understanding of a user's geographic context. Understanding the user's geographic context can in turn enable a variety of services that allow us to present information, recommend businesses and services, and place advertisements that are relevant at a hyper-local level.

In this paper we create language models of locations using coordinates extracted from geotagged Twitter data. We model locations at varying levels of granularity, from the zip code to the country level. We measure the accuracy of these models by the degree to which we can predict the location of an individual tweet, and further by the accuracy with which we can predict the location of a user. We find that we can meet the performance of the industry standard tool for predicting both the tweet and the user at the country, state and city levels, and far exceed its performance at the hyper-local level, achieving a three- to ten-fold increase in accuracy at the zip code level.

References

  1. J. Allan, J. Callan, K. Collins-Thompson, W. B. Croft, F. Feng, D. Fisher, J. Lafferty, L. Larkey, T. N. Truong, P. Ogilvie, L. Si, T. Strohman, H. Turtle, and C. Zhai. The Lemur toolkit for language modeling and information retrieval, 2005. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/lemur.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. C. M. Anastasios Noulas, Salvatore Scellato and M. Pontil. An empirical study of geographic user activity patterns in Foursquare. In Proceedings of ICWSM, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Z. Cheng, J. Caverlee, and K. Lee. You are where you tweet: A content-based approach to geo-locating Twitter users. In Proceedings of CIKM, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. D. Crandall, L. Backstrom, D. Huttenlocher, and J. Kleinberg. Mapping the world's photos. In Proceedings of WWW, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. J. Eisenstein, B. O'Connor, N. A. Smith, and E. Xing. A latent variable model for geographic lexical variation. In Proceedings of EMNLP, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. J. Hays and A. Efros. IM2GPS: Estimating geographic information from a single image. In Proceedings of CVPR, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. B. Hecht, L. Hong, B. Suh, and E. Chi. Tweets from Justin Bieber's heart: The dynamics of the "location" field in user profiles. In Proceedings of CHI, 2011. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. R. Jones, W. Zhang, B. Rey, P. Jhala, and E. Stipp. Geographic intention and modification in Web search. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(3):229--246, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. I. MaxMind. GeoIP City Accuracy for Selected Countries, May 2010. http://www.maxmind.com/app/city_accuracy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. M. Naaman, J. Boase, and C.-H. Lai. Is it really about me? Message content in social awareness streams. In Proceedings of CSCW, 2010. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. I. Ounis, C. Lioma, C. Macdonald, and V. Plachouras. Research directions in Terrier: a search engine for advanced retrieval on the Web. Novatica/UPGRADE Special Issue on Web Information Access, 2007.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. J. Ponte and W. B. Croft. A language modeling approach to information retrieval. In Proceedings of SIGIR, 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. P. Serdyukov, V. Murdock, and R. van Zwol. Placing Flickr photos on a map. In Proceedings of SIGIR, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. B. Sigurbjörnsson and R. Van Zwol. Flickr tag recommendation based on collective knowledge. In Proceedings of WWW, 2008. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. X. Yi, H. Raghavan, and C. Leggetter. Discovering users' specific geo intention in Web search. In Proceedings of WWW, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. C. Zhai and J. Lafferty. A study of smoothing methods for language models applied to ad hoc information retrieval. In Proceedings of SIGIR, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. "I'm eating a sandwich in Glasgow": modeling locations with tweets

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      SMUC '11: Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Search and mining user-generated contents
      October 2011
      100 pages
      ISBN:9781450309493
      DOI:10.1145/2065023

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 28 October 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate15of25submissions,60%

      Upcoming Conference

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader